telling a million people they will get say free healthcare and it will be paid for by jacking up the taxes on the top 3% or so is buying votes. And if a STATE does that-what will happen=the takers will flock to that state and that state will have to keep raising taxes on the top 3%. And when it gets too parasitic, those being parasitized by politicians will leave the state. And then those politicians will have to figure a way to keep pandering to the public teat sucklers when those who paid for the milk are no longer under their jurisdiction. Left-wingers love the federal government doing this because its much harder to leave the USA than it is say california or NY
We should switch over to a state system where the federal government handles foreign policy, military, trade, and civil rights. The states handle healthcare, welfare programs, education, regulations, etc. If we do need a federal policy in these areas, they should be only enacted with a super-majority.
That's not how universal HC works. It must be nationwide for it to work and if the wealthy don't like the care they can pay for their own and we will use the profits to subsidize the rest of us. The costs per person will be less than we are paying now only the costs of "luxury" care will keep going up. It is a win win don't you agree?
That would be great, but unless we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments I see no chance of such happening. The Federal government should have NO direct dealings with the population, and Federal spending will only become controlled by returning to the States the duty to tax their citizens/residents proportionate to their population as originally intended, with the House representing the peoples wants and the Senate representing the States ability to provide the revenue to pay in full their proportionate share of the costs of a balanced Federal budget while still maintaining the spending by State and local governments with the remainder of tax revenue after paying their Federal bill. When people find each dollar of Federal spending results in a decrease of spending or an increase in their taxes at State and/or local government, they are mush more likely to apply controls on Federal spending when little or none of it is coming back home.
LOL This is not the 18th Century and we cannot afford the inefficiency of 50 bureaucracies and 50 different rules for every program. Medicare is the most popular HC program and also the most cost efficient for a reason, it is nationwide. We must continue to support the UNITED States like our founders envisioned. Ever wonder why they didn't call it the "Disjointed States"? :lol:
There has never been mass famine in the United States
I said nothing at all about Medicare, and each State would be much more efficient in applying rules more fitting to their citizens needs/wants in a most efficient and cost effective way.
No, but ever wonder why they didn't call it the "United State of America"?
Ah. So, candidates promising to pass laws that make the lives of voters better, is buying votes? What do you call it when billionaire donors fund candidates who promise to lower taxes on billionaire donors?
Yet 1000's still go hungry and you don't care. Shame on you.
telling a million people they will get say free healthcare and it will be paid for by jacking up the taxes on the top 3% or so is buying votes. And if a STATE does that-what will happen=the takers will flock to that state and that state will have to keep raising taxes on the top 3%. And when it gets too parasitic, those being parasitized by politicians will leave the state. And then those politicians will have to figure a way to keep pandering to the public teat sucklers when those who paid for the milk are no longer under their jurisdiction. Left-wingers love the federal government doing this because its much harder to leave the USA than it is say california or NY
That would be great, but unless we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments I see no chance of such happening. The Federal government should have NO direct dealings with the population, and Federal spending will only become controlled by returning to the States the duty to tax their citizens/residents proportionate to their population as originally intended, with the House representing the peoples wants and the Senate representing the States ability to provide the revenue to pay in full their proportionate share of the costs of a balanced Federal budget while still maintaining the spending by State and local governments with the remainder of tax revenue after paying their Federal bill. When people find each dollar of Federal spending results in a decrease of spending or an increase in their taxes at State and/or local government, they are mush more likely to apply controls on Federal spending when little or none of it is coming back home.
What we need is a more level tax rate that treats all equally, including the elimination of nearly all tax breaks.
The tax rate is actually too high for higher income people. They end up paying a smaller percentage than many because of the tax breaks they get.
Reduce tax rates and tax deductions both.
Yet 1000's still go hungry and you don't care. Shame on you.
How would that work, exactly? Poor states, like Mississippi and Louisiana would fund their own versions of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Snap, without the tax base? What happens when people move from one state to another?
We have federal programs because it is uniform and doesn’t require 50 sets of rules.
I'm a tough love type person. I am sick and tired of people feeling entitled, and people like you who believe in entitlements. The war on poverty must include mitigation, else it just gets worse with entitlement hand-outs.
There must be something to shame, or otherwise mitigate, those who have children when they cannot afford to raise them.
I am not the bad actor here. The bad actors are those who believe such irresponsibility is their right to take from others.
I'm a tough love type person. I am sick and tired of people feeling entitled, and people like you who believe in entitlements. The war on poverty must include mitigation, else it just gets worse with entitlement hand-outs.
There must be something to shame, or otherwise mitigate, those who have children when they cannot afford to raise them.
I am not the bad actor here. The bad actors are those who believe such irresponsibility is their right to take from others.
Like I told the other Scrooge, there is no evidence that ignoring the plight of the impoverished helps eliminate the conditions that brought on their poverty. Merry Christmas.
the most important thing-the government cannot raise the taxes on a small group. any tax raise must impact everyone. that is the best way to reign in too much government. Why should the bottom 85% care if taxes are raised on the rich? hell, many of them vote for politicians who promise them more -that will be paid for by taxes on the rich.
Like I told the other Scrooge, there is no evidence that ignoring the plight of the impoverished helps eliminate the conditions that brought on their poverty. There is plenty of evidence for the reverse. Merry Christmas.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/30/poverty-negative-spiral-fear-self-loathing
LOL You sound like you are still at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 There is nothing efficient about it and all "State Rights" are a result of our history not expedience which is why we have been correcting it for 200 years. If we are to remain a country we need to act like one.
so if people don't buy into socialist income redistribution, they are scrooges, while those who try to buy the love of the masses by taking money from others, are to be seen as altruistic?
I hate it when politicians buy votes with tax dollars.
We shouldn't repeal them, just modify them with another amendment.
LOL The Constitutional Convention ended long ago, and our move to a more centralized form of government has brought about much corruption, fraud, and inefficiencies, while dividing us against one another more than any time in the past. If we are to remain a Country, we need to begin accepting the fact that we are ALL individuals, with differing opinions, needs, wants, abilities, shortcomings, etc. and recognize that government, and politicians in particular, only take advantage of our fighting amongst each other. Problems are best solved at their sources, NOT in Washington.
Repeal does not mean erase. That is essentially what would happen, like the 18th amendment which was repealed as a result of the 21st amendment. The words would forever remain in the document.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?